Did INTS screw up pRISM+?
No sooner did the H&Q analyst claim that the just-released pRISM+ product must work as advertised because the company that produced last year's pRISM fiasco surely wouldn't repeat that mistake, when we discover that INTS may have violated its VAR contract, which could bring about an injunction against pRISM+. What's going on?
Recall that INTS entered the embedded systems market after acquiring pSOS in 1991. Lacking any development tools, INTS relied on a variety of tool vendors to help them flesh out their product offerings. Microtec Research acquisition of Ready Systems and IPO in Dec 1995 soured its relationship with INTS, as reflected in a legal squabble, settled in arbitration in favor of Microtec.
INTS then set about to acquire needed tool technology, and quickly purchased TakeFive, Diab Data, CaseTools and Epilogue among others. Out of this, and certainly a resolve to respond to WIND's Tornado, came pRISM+, with the express goal of ridding the company of the need to share revenues with freeloading tool vendors. The initial product introduction at the ESC-West in 1996 turned out to be vapor-ware (as argued with INTS PR representative on this thread over a year ago before the company admitted having delivery problems).
Now we find that Green Hills, a long-time compiler vendor supporting INTS, believes that INTS violated its VAR contract, and wants an injunction against pRISM+ sales, along with a cool $30 million to defray revenues lost to other tool suppliers (such as Diab Data no doubt) that Green Hills purports were secretly acquired.
Wouldn't it be ironic if this time around INTS actually developed a reasonable product, only to lose again because they neglected to disentangle properly from their suppliers. Is INTS the Keystone cops of embedded systems?
Can anyone explain why INTS stock price went up 50 cents today in the face of a legal challenge of this magnitude by Green Hills?
Allen |
